Wow. Marco Rubio shot himself in the foot. Come debate time in 2015, Rand Paul can say "Rubio voted against the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. Even Harry Reid voted for the Constitutional amendment!"

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

When I actually saw this on the news on Friday, I was having a mostly crappy day until I saw this. The fact that Rand Paul actually got this thing eliminated, I was impressed.

I support him as a candidate in 2016, but there are many others who I like too, including Christie and Paul Ryan. But Rand Paul is certainly now a more appealing choice.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

That would be the case if most people agreed with him on most issues, which they do not.

Lol indeed. And thank goodness for that. By the way, if you're interested in Feinstein's amendment, I liked the ACLU's take: http://www.aclu.org...

The ACLU seems to be taking a principled stance against military detention of anyone, including non-citizens, in the United States. The key passage in their evaluation is this:

While military detention without charge or trial is illegal in the United States, some key senators urged that even American citizens and others picked up in the United States could be detained under NDAA.

They did not succeed. The NDAA that was signed into law on New Year's Eve last year was bad enough, but it did not authorize military detention within the United States. Some in Congress now want to have a second crack at it-some to make it better and some to make it worse.

I'm not a legal expert on the recent history of military detention (partially clarified by the Hamdi case in the SCOTUS and further clarified in the House version of the NDAA). However, I find this to be another good analysis of the issue at hand: http://www.lawfareblog.com...

That would be the case if most people agreed with him on most issues, which they do not.

Lol indeed. And thank goodness for that. By the way, if you're interested in Feinstein's amendment, I liked the ACLU's take: http://www.aclu.org...

The ACLU seems to be taking a principled stance against military detention of anyone, including non-citizens, in the United States. The key passage in their evaluation is this:

While military detention without charge or trial is illegal in the United States, some key senators urged that even American citizens and others picked up in the United States could be detained under NDAA.

They did not succeed. The NDAA that was signed into law on New Year's Eve last year was bad enough, but it did not authorize military detention within the United States. Some in Congress now want to have a second crack at it-some to make it better and some to make it worse.

I'm not a legal expert on the recent history of military detention (partially clarified by the Hamdi case in the SCOTUS and further clarified in the House version of the NDAA). However, I find this to be another good analysis of the issue at hand: http://www.lawfareblog.com...

Thanks for sharing that with me. I've always found Lawfare to be a wonderful blog for laymen and a great source of understand current issues.

At 12/3/2012 10:04:27 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:Rand Paul? I find it pretty disrespectful to Senators Finestein and Lee for not even mentioning them in this, when they co-wrote the language added.

1. Rand Paul introduced the first draft of the amendment. Feinstein-Lee wrote the watered down sh!t that has a loophole in it still allowing possible infinite detention, it just requires more manipulation of the language or having the Congress make the decision to indefinitely detain.

2. Rand Paul did all the work, all the speeches, all the filibusters to make this possible. Rand Paul spearheaded the whole thing.

Obama is threatening to veto the NDAA because it still prevents closure of Guantanamo (http://www.whitehouse.gov...). Rand Paul, of course, opposes closing Guantanamo.

At 12/3/2012 10:04:27 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:Rand Paul? I find it pretty disrespectful to Senators Finestein and Lee for not even mentioning them in this, when they co-wrote the language added.

1. Rand Paul introduced the first draft of the amendment. Feinstein-Lee wrote the watered down sh!t that has a loophole in it still allowing possible infinite detention, it just requires more manipulation of the language or having the Congress make the decision to indefinitely detain.

2. Rand Paul did all the work, all the speeches, all the filibusters to make this possible. Rand Paul spearheaded the whole thing.